I was very involved in this field about three years ago.
Almost everything (>95%) is a fraud and the people running the show know it. They should be in jail.
Almost everything (>95%) is a fraud and the people running the show know it. They should be in jail.
https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-...
Ironically, solar panels do exactly what. Especially on water. Water absorbs 93% of solar radiation. Solar panels aborb 30% to 70%. Global warming (all of it, all 150 years) is about a 0.7% change in albedo, so "bad" (30% absorption 70% reflection) solar planels on water (or concrete, or grass) undo ALL global warming on 90 times their surface area. And you can do better than that. You can just paint 3% of the land area of the planet of 1% of the ocean, and undo global warming.
Reflection from ground based surfaces not so much - I suspect the issue is reflection isn't absolute and transfers heat - the oceans reflect back light while warming the ocean surface layer is already part of the dynamic, solar panels and other reflective objects will also heat up and transfer that heat to the lower atmosphere land|sea layer.
That aside, there's some merit in the notion, it should have been looked at and there's likely a paper or three on the subject.
1) It will work. Not just the technique suggested above, but a lot of of them.
2) That's bad: it will "normalise" dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and take away power from the climate organisations of the UN, including UNEP.
3) They want it outlawed. Why? Because geoengineering can be so effective that a single decent-size city can counteract all or a significant portion of all global warming.
4) They warn that this will produce large scale unintended consequences. Such as stopping water supplies that depend on glacial melting (and for the first X years (decades?) will actually almost entirely stop glacial melting, which "may" make places like California, the Indus valley and most of inner Mongolia, maybe all of inner China, unliveable. Also it will probably start expanding the sahara again (due to climate change it's shrinking now), which will also destroy communities)
(why? It is not possible to pump large amounts water either upwards, or along long distances. We don't have the power for that. So even if you collect the water desalinated, it can't be used to make those places liveable for anywhere the amounts of people currently living there)
Recent example of UN position of the matter: https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/02/15/switzerland-pro...
As you link notes:
In 2019, its attempt to get countries to agree to the development of a governance framework failed as a result of opposition from Donald Trump’s USA and Saudi Arabia – who didn’t want restrictions on geoengineering.
> The majority of members advising the UN want it regulated, sure, and that's a sensible position due to unforeseen risks and the fossil fuel industry using a small amount of geoengineering that counters a portion of the problem as an excuse to double down on activity that continues to cause most of the problem.
Yeah, but read between the lines: they don't want it regulated, they want it outlawed, and, at least to a significant extent. They want it outlawed, firstly because if it isn't outlawed their power will disappear. And secondly, because no matter how you change the climate, it'll have the same problem any large infrastructure seems to have. Geoengineering WILL be incredibly good for some regions (who therefore may choose the lone wolf approach), AND will have devastating consequences for other regions. Someone will benefit greatly, someone will suffer.
And, frankly, if we're being honest ... "the West" (Europe/America/Russia/China/Northern Africa... even India) will benefit greatly, if we're honest. Africa and South America, and Indonesia will suffer.
But of course there's the identified problem. A decent-sized city could undo global warming (amplifying it is actually harder) BY ITSELF. Something like London or Paris or New York definitely could do it with the city's budget and land, and maybe even something like Milan would be big enough. Which brings the question: countries like Congo will greatly benefit from stopping global warming. They can, if they want to. What do we do then? Because, ironically, if they stop global warming through geoengineering, it will be a huge problem for "the West".